On 1 March 2012 21:49, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I've written up a first cut of a proposal to create new singular
>> property names:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Singularity
>
>
> Some of these properties actually make sense to be kept plural. I've
> highlighted many of the them in the wiki with some rationale, but I might
> have missed some more. I've strikelined them for now while they are being
> reviewed. we can remove them once they've been approved as being correct the
> way they are (plural).
Thanks everyone for the discussion. The schema.org partners agreed
today to move ahead with this direction.
Specifically, per http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Singularity#Core_Proposal
* For every property name whose final 's' is due to the earlier
practice of writing plurals for property names, create a new property
with shorter, singular name
* For each previous property name, agree this it is still acceptable
(and somehow document this in schema.org for people and machines); but
the singular form is preferred
I've reflected into the wiki all the substantive points that came up
in offlist and telecon discussion. In particular, there is a new
section http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Singularity#RDFa_impact
which works through an RDFa 1.1 example as my schema.org colleagues
wanted to make sure that it worked OK with RDFa 1.1 too.
I have just now been continuing the work Lin and Stéphane began, on a
final enumeration of the changes needed. Several properties that
didn't fall under the "plural to indicate repeatability" rule have
been moved out of the main list. I have also added domain/range links
to show the classes for all the property names that we'll be adding a
singular alias for.
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Singularity#Details
I've closed the issue tracking this, and actioned myself to get a
detailed change proposal written up. Getting those details right will
take a bit of work, so it's important to record consensus so far,
which is that moving away from cardinality-based plural properties
makes sense.
cheers,
Dan
https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/actions/4https://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/5